KONERU ARUNA KUMARI Vs. SHAIK ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions are preferred against the orders passed by the Rent Controller, Vijayawada, in E.A.No. 14 of 1985 and E.A.21 of 1985 in E.P.No 4 of 1985. E.A. 14 of 1985 was filed by a third party who claims to be the tenant, under Section 151 C.P.C. read with Rule 23(7) of Act 15 of 1960 for restoration of possession of the petition schedule premises to him. E A. No. 21 of 1985 was filed under Order 39 Rule 2(a) C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. to order detention of the landlady in civil prison. Both the petitions were allowed by the lower Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlady preferred these two revision petitions.

(2.) The Court below came to the conclusion that the tenancy is between the third party who filed the petition and the 1st respondent and the alleged tenancy that has been stated in the main Rent Control petition that the tenancy is between the land lady and K. Koteswara Rao who is the 2nd respondent ,is not correct and ultimately ordered redelivery of possession. In its elaborate order, after considering the written arguments submitted bv both the parties, the Court below came to the conclusion that what has been pleaded by the third party who is the tenant is correct. Some other civil suits were also filed in connection with the same premises after filing of these applications. Now we are not concerned with those applications.

(3.) The main controversy that has to be resolved in these revision petitions is whether there is any tenancy that has been created in favour of the third party who filed the application and who is the 1st respondent in these revision petitions.